Carle Suing Over Exempt Status

Don't level this at the attorneys.  I agree with everything you say about the motive and his reason to do this.  Blago is all about class warfare.  The rich hospitals and doctors are not paying their "fair share"  It is the same horse pucks he always uses.  One million to the black church fire even though it was covered by insuance.  The man needs to go to jail and now.

John,

Sorry, didn't mean to level it at the attorneys. Let me re-state it in another fashion.

Because of the nature of the issue, this cannot help but be a large man hour task for any law firm working on this suit. They will get rich simply because of the number of hours this is gonna take. Remember any Government Agency has only one theory when involved in a law suit.

"We don't have to beat you, we just have to break you."

The State will do all it can to drag its feet, until the tax deadlines approach and other statutory actions are enacted.

Again, sorry John and thanks for reminding me to clarify my statement.

To that end, I am, and shall always remain;
Rex Bradfield

I did a very quick look at the 44 page suit brought by Carle.  It appears to me that the crux of the issue is whether one loses their "not for profit" status when a "not for profit " leases a portion of its property to an affiliated "for profit" entity.  These questions have often been the subject of "revenue rulings" by the IRS and I suppose the State of Illinois.  Quite often the IRS will issue ruling that constitute "safe harbours"-defining the degree of for profit activity that a not-for-profit can engage it.  For example, a not for profit country club, a 501 (c) (7) may receive revenue by leasing out their course for a not-for-profit golf outing.  Now whether they can engage in other activities beyond the safe harbours provided in the regulation are another issue. 

In law, sometimes when there is a doubt as to whether or not a particular course of conduct will cause you problems, you can apply for a ruling by the attorney general.  One of the issues in the suit was whether one of their buildings could be leased to their for profit clinic.  Thus the issue is whether this particular use was so significant that it constituted a scheme to avoid taxation.  That is the issue.  I will use another example that was not an issue in this case.  If the hospital purchased drugs at a discount based on its not-for-profit status and then resold them throught Carle's for-profit pharmacy, that would be a no no that might make it lose its not for profit status. 

What most people do not know, however, is that there are many not-for-profit exemption.   The common one, 501 (c) (3) merely means that those that contribute get to deduct contributions.  Anon M. Muss misses the point when he or she suggests that "Carle plays games with finances..."  The rules of these games are set by legislators and the bureacrats that write and enforce the regulations.  Sometime people like Jo Ann Chester may take the view that one has gone beyond the permissible, but if we didn't have all these rules, laws, regulations and bureaucrats,  us lawyers would be changing bed pans.

01:08 PM, Anonymous

No Assumption there, I heard it. The second post, I heard testimony to that fact.

Watch what happens, if the suit proceeds.

Read what John M. posted very carefully and you see the delay and wiggle room there.

To that end, I am, and shall always remain;
Rex Bradfield